When the Golden State Warriors, resigned to the reality of losing Kevin Durant, executed a sign-and-trade for D’Angelo Russell, they did so with subsequent flexibility in mind. Yes, they liked, and still like, Russell as a player. They gave him a four-year, $117 million contract. They have him long-term if they want him.
But if they want to go a different direction, Russell also represents a significant trade asset — 23-year-old All-Stars don’t grow on trees. There have been ongoing rumors about where Russell night ultimately be heading. The Timberwolves wanted him bad this summer, and indeed the Warriors have reportedly been monitoring the situation with Karl-Anthony Towns, who Ethan Strauss of The Athletic reported is less than thrilled with the situation in Minnesota.
That’s a big name, but the Warriors potentially have a big-time package to offer with Russell and their 2020 first-round pick, which is on pace to be a high lottery selection, perhaps even No. 1 overall. Blockbuster deals are certainly in play for Golden State. Along those lines, here’s a name to get your head spinning: Ben Simmons. From Marcus Thompson of The Athletic:
One of the interesting possibilities I’ve heard being kicked around is Russell for Philadelphia’s Ben Simmons. The 76ers could use a point guard who can score and run the show — and shoot. Some believe the pairing of Simmons and big man Joel Embiid isn’t viable in their pursuit of a championship. Simmons, as one source told me, is probably the best player the Warriors could possibly get for Russell, just considering the needs of the Warriors and their potential trade partners.
Thompson goes on to detail the Warriors’ concern over the potential fit of Simmons and Draymond Green, who could be seen as somewhat redundant in that they’re both point-forwards who can’t shoot. Said Thompson: “A couple of people in the organization straight out said that Simmons and Green don’t fit together.”
OK, let’s apply some perspective here. Sure, Simmons and Green do a lot of the same things, but defensively that would make a monster again with two guys who can legitimately guard 1-5 and switch everything, not to mention free one another up to roam and make improvisational plays as the other plugs the gaps. Add in a healthy Klay Thompson, and that is a some kind of fortress.
Offensively, shooting becomes the issue. With two guys the defense can completely ignore, spacing could become squeezed. But having the two greatest shooters to ever play on the court would largely neutralize any negative spacing effects. I recently wrote that the Sixers are playing Simmons out of position. He should be cast in a Draymond-type role. Golden State could play a small lineup with Green and Simmons as the size and run teams off the floor.
Plus, if you want to worry about redundancy, playing Russell with Stephen Curry presents similar issues. Russell needs the ball in his hands to be maximally effective. Curry is an off-ball wizard, but taking it out of his hands too much is offensive suicide. Curry, at the very least, makes Russell less offensively necessary, which in turn, given the personnel, allows Golden State to field more two-way lineups.
Simmons has thrived in the past with shooters around him. In the 2018 playoffs, we saw what is probably the best-case setup for Simmons with four shooters around him in a fast-paced attack. It’s a weird fit with Joel Embiid given Simmons’ inability to run a conventional pick and roll while representing a scoring treat or play inside-out with a traditional big man. Curry is the best pick-and-roll player to ever live, or at least the most threatening. Simmons and Draymond as screeners for him, acting as downhill playmakers in wide-open space when Curry drags two defenders with him, is terrifying.
Plus, there’s a long-term play here. Curry, Thompson and Draymond aren’t getting any younger. With Simmons on board, the next franchise player is in place, provided you put him in a situation conducive to both his strengths and weaknesses. Golden State can focus on continuing to add shooters on the edges, which helps them in the short term with any Simmons-Green spacing issues, but also sets a future blueprint for playing Simmons in a more Giannis-type offense — a downhill creator with elite size and plenty of shooting around him and no traditional big man to clog the lane.
As for the Sixers, Russell is pretty perfect. All the things Simmons can’t do, he can. The Sixers run the fewest pick and rolls in the league because Simmons represents zero threat as a shooter coming off a high pick, and Tobias Harris and Josh Richardson are out of their depth as offensive focal points. Russell, meanwhile, is an extraordinary pick-and-roll player. One scout told me earlier this season, in fact, that in his estimation Russell might be the best pick-and-roll player in the league.
Perhaps more importantly, Russell is a natural with Embiid. Whereas Simmons and Embiid are often bumping heads in an effort to occupy the same interior space. Russell is a traditional shooter/ball-handler that would allow Embiid to grow as a roller and focus on dominating on the block. Philly would lose a lot defensively in flipping Simmons for Russell, but they have perimeter defense to spare with Richardson, Harris and rookie Matisse Thybulle. What they are lacking is shooting and elite half-court playmaking.
In the same piece I addressed Simmons’ positional contradiction, I wrote that Philly should be knocking OKC’s door down trying to trade for Chris Paul for pretty much all the same reasons Russell would be a great fit, but the even greater upside with Russell is obviously his age and the fact that he’s not making nearly $85 million over the next two seasons after this one. Russell, in fact, is making less than $59 million.
That’s a significant difference. Whereas Paul would be a win-now risk, Russell would provide a lot of the same short-term benefits with the added incentive that he’s a long-term asset, in both age and contact, who can potentially grow alongside Embiid for years to come.
There’s a lot to like about the idea of this potential deal, for both sides.
